Archives for posts with tag: nuclear


07.11.2018 hævdes (formentligt bevises) at olieindustrien allerede kort efter krigen kendte til mekanismen bag klimaændringerne.
I stedet for at advare allierede man sig med forskere der benægtede eller nedtonede sammenhængen.
Kort efter krigen så den blomstrende olieindustri, der var koncentreret omkring Rockefælder Fonden, at den kommende udvikling af atomkraft var en alvorlig konkurrent.
Man fandt en god støtte i den amerikanske forsker Herman Muller, der allerede før krigen havde vist at ioniserende stråling (Røntgen eller Radioaktivt) kunne medføre kromosom-ændringer (nedarvede ændringer ?) i forsøgsdyr. (Bananfluer)
Herved startede den folkelige frygt for radioaktivitet.

Nyttige Idioter

Inden længe (1971) trådte Greenpeace – og specielt eftersnakkere – ind på banen med et utal af false beretninger om en overhængende fare i forbindelse med alt der var forbundet med atomkraft.

Ideologisk Sammenfald ?

Efter alt at dømme var de vestligste “fredsbevægelser” organiseret og støttet fra det gamle Soviet – ikke kun gennem utallige “personlige” bidrag.
Man blev inviteret til “Fredslejre” i Østeuropæiske vasalstater.

Der var – og er – et stærkt “personsammenfald” mellem “anti-atom” og de mange fredsbevægelser.
Det er naturligvis umuligt at afgøre om der også var tale om egentlig økonomisk støtte fra olieindustrien eller senere fra de mange “vedhæng”.

I dag

I løbet af 2018 begynder offentligheden af forstå at der er noget der hedder klimaændringer.
Det betyder at “De Grønne” er i et slemt dilemma:
Kampen mod atomkraft støttes af den siddende amerikanske president, der går ind for mere kulkraft.


er det hævet over enhver tvivl at “De Forurenende” – Både olie og kul – fik, og får, (indirekte) opbakning både fra “De Røde” og fra Greenpeace, der bekæmper og dæmoniserer den fælles fjende: Atomkraft.
På grundlag af dette føler jeg at denne bloks overskrift er berettiget.
Kort fortalt betyder det, at vores uvidenhed begrænser vores evne til at erkende vores egen uvidenhed.
Se om den magiske silver-bullet, der kan omgå de elementære termodynamiske love og lave CO2 om til flydende brændsel.

From The Economist 2017 Feb. 25

I have made major changes in the lay-out:
Mainly headings and line-shifts.
My additions and comments are marked as “indented text” with bullets.
Sometimes, I have used square brackets [ ]


ALMOST 150 years after photovoltaic cells and wind turbines were invented; they still generate only 7% of the world’s electricity.
Yet something remarkable is happening.

  • If the grid has less than say 10 % of the supply from the unstable renewable, this renewable can be incorporated in the system without major problems.
    Above this it starts to act as parasites.

From being peripheral to the energy system, just over a decade ago, they [the renewables] are now growing faster than any other energy source and their falling costs are making them competitive with fossil fuels.

  • As usually it is not discussed, how the varying and partly unpredictable renewables, should pay for the necessary backup.

BP, an oil firm, expects renewables to account for half of the growth in global energy supply over the next 20 years.
It is no longer far-fetched to think that the world is entering an era of clean, unlimited and cheap power.

About time, too

There is a $20trn drawback, though.
To get from here to there, we will require huge amounts of investment over the next few decades, to replace old smog-belching power plants and to upgrade the pylons and wires that bring electricity to consumers.

  • $20trn, as an investment, would bring us a long way towards nuclear with future clean and reliable power.
  • Here, as usually, it is “forgotten” that very little will be gained with a strong net to distribute what is not there.
    Or better: For obvious reasons, sunshine is synchronized.
    But in spite of green hopes, the wind is almost synchronized as well.
  • On an other website, I discuss the hopeles dream.

The dirty secret

Normally investors like putting their money into electricity because it offers reliable returns.
Yet green energy has a dirty secret.
The more [subsidized] renewables is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source.
That makes it hard to manage the transition to a carbon-free future, during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable.
If the lights are to stay on.
Unless the market is fixed, subsidies to the industry will only grow.


Policymakers are already seeing this inconvenient truth as a reason to put the brakes on renewable energy.
In parts of Europe and China, investment in renewables is slowing as subsidies are cut back.
However, the solution is not less wind and solar.
It is to rethink how the world prices clean energy in order to make better use of it.

  • It is difficult to understand why nuclear is excluded from being “clean”.

Shock to the system

At its heart, the problem is that government-supported renewable energy has been imposed on a market designed in a different era.

For much of the 20th century, electricity was made and moved by vertically integrated, state-controlled monopolies.
From the 1980s onwards, many of these were broken up, privatized and liberalized, so that market forces could determine where best to invest.
Today only about 6% of electricity users get their power from monopolies.

The pressure

Yet everywhere the pressure to decarbonize power supply has brought the state creeping back into markets.

This is disruptive for three reasons.
The first is the subsidy system itself.
The other two are inherent to the nature of wind and solar: their intermittency and their very low running costs.

All three help explain why power prices are low and public subsidies are addictive.

1: Substidies

First, the splurge of public subsidy, of about $800bn since 2008, has distorted the market.
It came about for noble reasons – to counter climate change and prime the pump for new, costly technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels.

  • No. I dare to say that it was not noble reasons.
    $800bn became available because we, in the West, had been brainwashed against nuclear.
  • Try to imagine how it would have been now.
    If these $800bn had been used for nuclear, instead of being lost down into a bottomless green hole?
  • If so, it would have been enough to pay for 160 new reactors as those now exported by Korea to UAE

But subsidies hit just as electricity consumption in the rich world was stagnating because of growing energy efficiency and the financial crisis.
The result was a glut of power-generating capacity that has slashed the revenues utilities earn from wholesale power markets and hence deterred investment.

2: Intermittent

Second, green power is intermittent.
The vagaries of wind and sun – especially in countries without favorable weather – mean that turbines and solar panels generate electricity only part of the time.
To keep power flowing, the system relies on conventional power plants, such as coal, gas or nuclear, to kick in when renewables falter.

  • Much too often we see how it is assumed, that the (dirty) coal, and especially the (hated) nuclear, should just kick in and act as back-up for the (bellowed) renewables.
  • Here, it is necessary to come forward with the following:
    1) The physical lifetime of these plants will suffer with frequent
    blaramp-up and down.
    2) After a ramp-down, a nuclear plant will suffer Xenon-poisoning.
    blaIn this way, a quick ramp-up may result in an accident as at
    However, “Western Reactors” are provided with a proper containment.
    Therefore a “Chernobyl Accident” will not cause damage outside the plat.
    3) The costs for power from coal, and especially from nuclear, are
    blamainly fixed costs.
    Elementary economics will show that it is not the best to use coal and nuclear as back-up.
    4) Back-up will usually be hydro or gas-fired plants.
  • Without subsidies.
    If we want to be “green” it must be with very high economic penalties on pollution.
    In an absolutely free market, nuclear would probably be able to manipulate the prices and kill the economics of renewables.
    Just as the subsidies to the renewable is killing the economy of the rest.

3: Investors

But because conventional power plants are idle for long periods, they find it harder to attract private investors.
So, to keep the lights on, they require public funds.

Everyone is affected by this third factor:
Renewable energy has negligible or zero marginal running costs because the wind and the sun are free.

  • It is claimed, but usually neglected, that the wind-turbines, and especially the gears, have a limited life-time, which is markedly reduced during max loads.

In a market that prefers energy produced at the lowest short-term cost, wind and solar take business from providers that are more expensive to run, such as coal plants, depressing power prices, and hence revenues for all.

Get smart

The higher the penetration of renewables, the worse these problems get.
Especially in saturated markets.
In Europe, which was first to feel the effects, utilities have suffered a “lost decade” of falling returns, stranded assets and corporate disruption.
Last year, Germany’s two biggest electricity providers, E.ON and RWE, both split in two.
In renewable-rich parts of America power providers struggle to find investors for new plants.
Places with an abundance of wind, such as China, are curtailing wind farms to keep coal plants in business.

  • Wind farms in northern China are far away from the necessary back-up provided by stable regulated hydro.
    The necessary power lines are not cheap either.


The consequence is that the electricity system is being re-regulated as investment goes chiefly to areas that benefit from public support.
Paradoxically, that means the more states support renewables, the more they [have to] pay for conventional power plants.
Using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency

  • Capacity payments has been introduced in England.
    In Germany the talk is about “scheduled black outs”.

In effect, politicians rather than markets, are, once again, deciding how to avoid blackouts.


They often make mistakes:
Germany’s support for cheap, dirty lignite caused emissions to rise, notwithstanding huge subsidies for renewables.
Without a new approach the renewables revolution will stall.
[See also ]


The good news is that new technology can help fix the problem.
Digitalization, smart meters and batteries are enabling companies and households to smooth out their demand — by doing some energy-intensive work at night, for example.
This helps to cope with intermittent supply.

  • Smart meters and variation in prices has been proposed, and rejected, some 40 years ago.
    Anyhow, whatever is done, it will have a limited effect.
  • For the time being, and for the foreseeable future, batteries will not be cheap enough to stabilize the grid for more than very short periods.
  • Much too often we are told, that “Small is Beautiful”.
    If larger plants cannot be economic, it may not be possible for smaller plants.

Small, modular power plants, which are easy to flex up or down, are becoming more popular, as are high-voltage grids that can move excess power around the network more efficiently.

  • Can smart grid save the fluctuating wind power?

  • In the discussion about wind power variation, it is often mentioned that ‘we just’ need to connect countries with a strong network of power lines.
  • April 2016 this problem was addressed by Sören Kjärsgaard.
    He provides a very thorough assessment of the energy situation, especially in Denmark and Germany.
    From this report is quoted as follows:
    It is evident that when you have said Wind power you have to say back-up too.
    Could this back-up be:
    European Wind Power connected by a super grid?
    ——– You find data from Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep.,
    ——– Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Hungary, Poland,
    ——– Sweden and Germany:
    Over this huge area, the Wind Power fluctuates between
    56,512 MW and 3801 MW (7%).

    The answer will be NO – Unfortunately
    No matter, how much smart grid you get, it can not conjure a stable supply.
  • On another page I have tried to analyze the hypothetical situation assuming Wind Only.
    It should not come as a surprise that it will be extremely expensive.
    If at all possible.

The power market

The bigger task is to redesign power markets to reflect the new need for flexible supply and demand.
They should adjust prices more frequently, to reflect the fluctuations of the weather.
At times of extreme scarcity, a high fixed price could kick in to prevent blackouts.
Markets should reward those willing to use less electricity to balance the grid.
Just as they reward those who generate more of it.
Bills could be structured to be higher or lower depending how strongly a customer wanted guaranteed power all the time – a bit like an insurance policy.

  • Sure, but as mentioned above, it will have a long way to go and will be of minor benefit.
  • Extremely high prices will have a heavy negative social impact – even if it is for shorter periods.

In short, policymakers should be clear they have a problem and that the cause is not renewable energy, but the out-of-date system of electricity pricing.
Then they should fix it.

Atter, 2019-09-21 kommer The Economist med en lang og grundig vurdering.
Naturligvis uden at angive en reel løsning eller påpege de ansvarlige.
The past present and future of climate change.
Humanity will find ways to adapt to climate change.


Tysk solkraft variationFrom Germany: (right)
From the American “Sunshine-states”: (below)Duck curve result (2)
Sure you know: I say go nuclear.
If you say Chernobyl, then look at
If you say Fukushima, then look at
Previously, I have tried to get to the same problem on the following:
Is “Western Nuclear” on its death-bead?
Why did nuclear end up to be so expensive?
Passionately, I claim that we have been cheated by “The Green”
Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth.

Mere KK mindre forureningIf you want to avoid (unnecessary) pollution.
Better do as in France.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.


Bq Becquerel
1 Bq is one radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit.
One adult human contains about 4,500 Bq from natural sources.
More can be found form World Nuclear
Sv Sievert
The Sievert is a measure of the health effect of ionizing radiation on the human body.
Also here World Nuclear gives a good overview of the situation.
A very illustrative, and apparently reliable, Radiation Dose Chart is provided by Wikimedia.
Other Units
Several other units are still used in different literature:
1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1Gy = 100 rad = 100 rem = 100 Roentgen
Becquerel to Sievert
There is no clear-cut relation between Becquerel and Sievert.
The only guide found is in a paper from Luckey fig. 10. Here you will deduct: 1 mSv = 1.7 kBq/litter.
Without having checked and fearing being wrong I quote:
1000 Bq/m^3 = 4.45 mJ*hour/m^3 = 6.3 mSv

Damage to humans

  • 500 mSv: Careful monitoring of survivors of the nuclear bombing in Japan showed that people who were exposed to 500 mSv or less had no shorter average lifespan than the rest of the population.
    (500 mSv in a single exposure will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness, and is more than 100 times what is normally permitted)
  • 3000 mSv will result in half of the exposed will die and the survivors vill have an average lifespan three years less than the rest of the population.
  • Contrary to many horror stories and calculation of future deaths, there is only a very little correlation between radiation and cancer.

Most predictions and many atrocity stories are based on calculations.
It is usually assumed that no matter how little, then all radiation is harmful (LNT)
However, this hypothesis is clearly at odds with reality.

Types of radiation

Alpha radiation is fast nuclei of helium.
It is stopped by a layer of paper.
Beta radiation is fast electrons.
Both alpha and beta radiation can cause severe skin-burns, but not radiation sickness unless absorbed through the digestive system, or the lungs.
Gamma radiation is ultra short light waves.
It can penetrate the skin and cause severe radiation damage.
Neutrons appear only in connection with nuclear bomb attack.
However, in conection with accidents in relation to tests and wrong handling of plutonium, there may be serious exposure to neutrons.
(At an experiment going wrong and turning into “criticality” a chemist,
Cecil Kelley died from a 200 microseconds blast of Neutron and gamma radiation.)

More about Radiation Sickness:

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

Når diskussionen bevæger sig i retning af stråling og virkningerne på den menneskelige sundhed, er der flere forhindringer:
Først, selvfølgeligt: Mangel på pålidelige oplysninger om effekten af et lavt niveau af stråling.
Men et andet stort problem er de mange ukendte enheder, der anvendes.
Også den forvirring, der er forårsaget af uvidenhed.
Nogle gange også ønsker om at benægte fakta.
Endog et ønske fra nogle organisationer, der forsøger at forvandle alt der er relateret til radioaktivitet til at være en stor fare.

Nær slutningen af denne blok vil du finde en evaluering af de latterlige påstande og urealistiske “sikre grænser” i forhold til katastrofen i Fukushima.


Bq Becquerel
1 Bq er et radioaktivt henfald per sekund og er en meget lille enhed.
Et voksent menneske indeholder ca. 4.500 Bq fra naturlige kilder.
Mere kan findes på World Nuclear
Sv Sievert
Sievert er et mål for den skadelige effekt af ioniserende stråling på mennesker, såvel som på dyr.
Også her giver World Nuclear et godt overblik over situationen.
Et meget illustrativt, og tilsyneladende pålideligt, Radiation Dose Chart findes på Wikimedia.
Andre enheder
Flere andre enheder er stadig i brug forskellige steder:
1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1Gy = 100 rad = 100 rem = 100 Roentgen
Becquerel til Sievert
Der er ikke nogen entydig sammenhæng mellem Becquerel og Sievert.
Den eneste vejledning jeg har fundet er på en side fra Luckey fig. 10.
Her kan du udlede: 1 mSv = 1,7 kBq/litter.
Uden at have kontrolleret og frygtede at være forkert, nævner jeg:
1000 Bq/m^3 = 4.45 mJ*hour/m^3 = 6.3 mSv
Linear No Treshold
Forudsætningen om at lige meget hvor lidt, så er det skadeligt, har for snart længe siden måttet give op over for realiteterne.
Enten Eller
Et materiale kan være højradioaktivt eller der kan være radioaktivt i lang tid. Men, i modsætning til mange påstande, ikke begge dele.
Skader fra Stråling
Den megen uvidenhed og fejlagtige propaganda har resulteret i absurde påstande.
denne side har jeg forsøgt at løfte sløret for realiteter.


Nu og da kommer radon op i medierne og folk, der bor i “radon huse” kan være bange og vil ofte have svært ved at sælge deres hus.
Wikipedia findes en meget omfattende vurdering om radon.
Herfra, og fra andre kilder, er følgende et kort resumé.


Radon stammer fra henfald af uran, hovedsageligt fundet i granit i jordskorpen.
Den eneste isotop, der har interesse er Rn 222, der har en halveringstid på omkring fire dage.
Det er en tung ædelgas og vil kun skade, hvis det henfalder i lungerne.
Koncentrationen måles i Bq/m^3 (Henfald per sekund / m^3)

Koncentrationerne kan variere meget fra sted til sted.
I det fri, varierer det fra 1 til 100 Bq/m^3, endnu mindre (0,1 Bq/m^3) over havet.
I huler, i miner, eller i dårligt ventilerede boliger, kan koncentration komme op til 2000 Bq/m^3.
Typiske eksponeringer er omkring 100 Bq/m^3 indendørs og 10-20 Bq/m^3 udendørs.

Udsættelse for radon

Det magiske kur
Lige så meget som radon og stråling er frygtet, har det været set som en magisk kur for alle typer af sygdomme.
I en periode omkring 1915 var radioaktivt vand på mode, indtil nogle rige og entusiastiske mennesker overdoserede og døde en forfærdelig død.
Radon bade – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  Radon Treatmeng
Det skal bemærkes, at nu, såvel som længe før radon og radioaktivitet var kendt, har sundhedssøgere frekventeret steder, hvor de får “radon-behandling” for alle typer af sygdomme.
På internettet kan du finde flere reklamer for kurbade og klinikker, som for eksempel: her, her og her. Radioactive Water
Radon i “Sundheds vand”
Selv radon mineralvand blilver reguleret:
Mindste styrke er 74 Bq/l, men følgende er fundet:
Merano: 2000 Bq/l og
Lurisia (Italien): 4000 Bq/l
Tl sammenligning tjener at vi alle bærer rundt på omkring 65 Bq/kg fra naturlige kilder.
Høje niveauer af radon findes flere steder.
Bedst kendt er det, der oprindeligt blev kendt som “The Rasmar Paradox”:
En relativt lille befolkningsgruppe ved Rasmar i Iran udsættes for meget høje niveauer af stråling, mest fra radon.
Dette, ikke helt enestående, tilfælde er over 80 gange højere end den baggrundsstråling vi alle udsættes for.
Der har imidlertid ikke været rapporter om dårligt helbred.
Flere andre steder har lignende, men mindre eksponering:
– – • Guarapari (Brasilien)
– – • Cumuruxatiba (Brasilien)
– – • Kerala (Indien)
– – • Karunagappall (Indien)
– – • Arkaroola (South Australia)
– – • Yangjiang (Kina)
– – • Black Beach (Brasilien – Højeste, men ubeboet)

Sandsynligvis findes det højeste registrerede niveau i forbindelse med Watras Incident, som beskrevet lidt senere.
De sundhedsmæssige virkninger af høj eksponering af radon i miner har været kendt, helt tilbage til 1530.
Det blev først beskrevet af Paracelsus i hans beskrivelse af et langsomt ødelæggende syndrom blandt minearbejdere.
I dag ved man at eksponeringen kan nå op til 1.000.000 Bq/m^3
Det må håbes, at dette er “en saga blot.”
Efter Tjernobyl
Tilsyneladende for at undgå kritik ønskede de Sovjetiske myndigheder at evakuere alle personer, der ville blive udsat for en ekstra livsdosis på
350 mSv.
Hvis tilsvarende skulle implementeres i Norge ville det være nødvendigt at evakuere en halv million indbyggere i området omkring Mjøsa, hvor påvirkningen, fra radon, ville overskride denne grænseværdi.

Radiation Hormesis

Man kan finde en kontroversiel epidemiologisk undersøgelse, der uventet viser reduceret kræftrisiko vs. radon ved eksponering mindre end 200 Bq/m^3.
Dette blev først publiceret af T. D. Luckey, og er omtalt i Wikipedia.

Radon and CancerDet er svært at forstå, hvorfor dette ‘sådan bare’ er blevet afvist af WHO og andre.
Og det er endnu sværere at forstå, hvorfor disse observationer ikke er blevet fulgt op.
En mulig anden årsag er
diskuteret her.

Jeg har forsøgt at sammenfatte eksisterende viden her.

Endnu mere overraskende er forskning der viser at selv meget høje doser af ioniserende stråling ikke har forårsaget de meget frygtede skader på kommende generationer.

De mange forskellige enheder og de ofte modstridende “beviser” har ført til følgende.

Cigaret Unit

Cigaret UnitFra internettet, citerer jeg følgende:
For lang tid siden fik en ekspert i stråling spørgsmålet:
“Hvorfor vil du ikke sammenligne dine resultater til noget folk kan forstå, som for eksempel Cigaret Unit?”
Hans svar var klart:
“Jeg har forsøgt. Det er håbløst. Folk beskylder mig bare for at lyve.”
Fra privat korrespondance med en dansk ekspert, husker jeg noget tilsvarende.
(Desværre har jeg ingen optegnelser eller referencer.)

Watras Incident

Den eneste – forhåbentlig pålidelige, men også temmelig forvirrende information er fundet fra The Guardian og Wikipedia.
Følgende er et uddrag:

  • Radon i enkelte boliger kan lejlighedsvis være størrelsesordener højere end typisk.
    Det blev dramatiseret ved det såkaldte Watras Incident:
    En medarbejder på et amerikansk atomkraftværk udløste sin strålingsmonitor efter han havde været væk fra arbejde flere dage.
    Dette var på trods af, at anlægget endnu ikke var forsynet med brændstof, og på trods af, at medarbejderen havde været dekontamineret og sendt hjem “ren” hver aften.
    Naturligvis forstod man at det indebar en kilde til forurening uden for anlægget.
    Det viste sig at være et radon niveauer på 100.000 Bq/m^3 i hans kælder.
    Den tilsvarende risiko for lungekræft forbundet med at leve i dette hus blev sammenlignet med den ekstrapolerede risiko fra at ryge 135 pakker cigaretter dagligt.

Det er svært at acceptere disse resultater og det bliver endnu vanskeligere, når det bemærkes, at alarmen blev rejst, ikke fordi han eller nogen af hans familie havde lidt af dårligt helbred.
En lignende, men ikke helt så dramatisk begivenhed fandt sted på et svensk atomkraftværk, der blev lukket i flere dage, indtil det blev konstateret at en af de ansatte havde taget sit strålingsmeter med hjem.

Hvad kan ikke undgås?

Lige meget hvor du er, og uanset hvad du gør, har vi alle – såvel som vore forfædre – været udsat for radioaktiv stråling.
Dette, sammen med ‘menneskeskabt eksponering’, er sammenfattet her.

Hvad er tilladt?

Hvis enheder og doser er modstridende, er det intet i forhold til de eksisterende regler.
Det har naturligvis været nødvendigt at udslukke “oplysninger” fra mange såkaldt Grønne Organisationer der tilsyneladende specialiserer sig i skræmmekampagner.
Endvidere kan forskellige politiske udtalelser og regler være stærkt påvirket af frygt for at blive beskyldt for ikke at beskytte offentligheden.

Det er nemt at finde mange, klart modstridende, “fakta” og bestemmelser.
Alt for meget til at gå i detaljer her.
En meget omfattende guide til definitioner og bestemmelser vedrørende bortskaffelse af radioaktivt affald er udgivet af Det Internationale Atomenergiagentur.
Disse retningslinjer bliver tilsyneladende anvendt meget forskelligt i forskellige lande og i forskellige situationer.
Dette har resulteret i følgende, som er et uddrag af World Nuclear.

  • Genbrug af materialer fra nedlukkede nukleare anlæg er begrænset af niveauet af radioaktivitet i dem.
    Dette gælder også for materialer fra andre kilder, som fx anlæg for naturgas.
    Men de niveauer der er tilladt, kan være meget forskellige.
    For eksempel kan skrot fra gasanlæg genbruges, hvis det har mindre end 500.000 Bq/kg (undtagelses niveauet).
    Dette niveau er dog tusind gange højere end clearance niveauet for genbrugsmateriale (både stål og beton) fra den nukleare industri, hvor alt over 500 Bq/kg, ikke kan blive frigjort fra myndighedskontrol til genbrug. – – – –

    Norge og Holland er de eneste lande med ensartede retningslinjer.

Selv i betragtning af det omsiggribende hysteri og det næsten giftige politiske lobbyarbejde, er det svært at forstå dette.

Offentlig interesse

Ofte vil man finde udsagn fra Grønne Organisationer som angiver, at alle niveauer af stråling er farlig.
Med billige og meget præcise Geiger-Tællere er det blevet moderne at finde “farlige” steder.
Selvfølgelig må hjælp fra offentligheden blive værdsat, som for eksempel da en for længst glemt radioaktiv kilde blev fundet i Tokyo.
Men samtidig er det nødvendigt at forholde sig til reelle eller udtænkte farer for det, vi alle er udsat for gennem hele vores liv.


Det er anslået at der blev frigivet radioaktivt materiale mellem 500 PBq og 1000 PBq (10^18 radioaktive henfald per sekund)
Stillehavet dækker 165 millioner km^2 og indeholder 66 millioner km^3 vand.
Hvis vi antager at alle disse 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) blev ligeligt fordelt over 1% af havet til en dybde på 50 m
Og hvis vi undlader at vurdere at en overveje del, ‘sådan bare’ er “sunket ned” fordi det er tungt materiale, så vil du få 12 Bq/kg.
Hvis du derefter overvejer, at omtrent 90% af det radioaktive udslip er Jpd131 (se side 116 i UNSCEAR 2013 Rapport,) ja så vil 1,2 Bq/kg være aktivt på tidspunktet for disse rædsels-historier.
Endvidere kan det være værd at nævne, at det amerikanske National Academy of Science har henvist til målinger, der viser 7 Bq/m^3 af Fukushima-relatert 137Cs nær den canadiske kontinentalsokkel.
Dette kan dog have været temmelig vanskeligt at måle, i betragtning af, at den naturlige stråling i havet er 11.000 Bq/m^3

For at forholde sig til noget velkendt, kan det nævnes, at vi alle bærer rundt på omkring 65 Bq/kg (65.000 Bq/m^3) som en del af vores menneskelige legeme, eller at et radon niveau på 100.000 Bq/m^3 blev fundet i kælderen i et beboet hus.
Det var ‘sådan bare’ 1000 gange det vi frygter i Danmark.
(Watras Incident, som beskrevet ovenfor.)
Ret mig hvis jeg er forkert.
Fukushima Greenpeace
I betragtning af dette, er det svært at forstå, hvordan veletablerede “Grønne Organisationer” viser kort og angiver “ekstrem fare” relateret til den radioaktive forurening helt ud til den amerikansk vestkyst. Og fortsætte ubesværet ind over land.
1 RAD = 10 mSv
Men denne enhed er (bevidst?) forvirrende og vil ikke have nogen mening, uden angivelse af tid. F.eks. RAD/time.

Uden at kunne kontrollere, tror jeg dog dette link fra The Registrer er mere pålideligt.

Hvis du har tillid til World Nuclear, kan følgende være interessant:

  • En silt barriere har længe været på plads for at forhindre forurening i at nå det åbne hav og at fortyndingsprocesserne på grund af havstrømme betyder, at der ikke kan påvises radioaktivitet i havvand udenfor havnen.

Hvis du er en fan af YouTube og har set “The Ocean of Death”, kan du spekulerer på, hvordan de mange fisk kan være så følsomme, at en stigning i strålingen fra 11.000 til 11.007 Bq/m^3 har forårsaget katastrofen vist på filmen.
I modsætning til stråling, er fisk temmeliglettet følsomme over for ændringer i koncentrationen af salt i vandet.
Så, hvis det ikke er direkte falskneri, vil de døde fisk måske kunne findes uden for et anlæg til afsaltning af havvand.
Udover dette er det værd at se på den sidste tabel på en side fra UNSCEAR.
Her ses det, at den radiologiske tolerance for fisk er sådan ti gange den for pattedyr og fugle.
Hvis du søger på en anden side kan du måske blive lettet ved at se, hvorledes dyrene trives i den stærkt radioaktive og forbudte zone ved Tjernobyl.

Så vidt jeg har forstået, er TEPCOs grænser for forurening af grundvandet, at der ikke må findes mere end 5 Bq/L af beta-radioaktivt materiale og en Bq/L af cæsium-134 og cæsium-137.
Igen bør dette ses i forhold til den naturlige belastning af det menneskelige legeme: 65 Bq/L og af havet: 11 Bq/L

For at være på den sikre side, blev grænsen for eksponering af stråling (helt arbitrært) sat til et millisievert / år.
Dette er “sådan bare” en tiendedel af hvad nogle europæere har været udsat for gennem hele livet.

Min konklusion er klar.
Noget er råddent – et eller andet sted –
Men hvor?

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
Now and then we see alarming reports concerning an imminent danger that terrorists will gather radioactive material and use conventional explosives to spread it over a large area, which then will be uninhabitable for a long time.
Apparently nobody has taken the trouble to go into details, except for example to tell:

“They [Isis] are working on a series of attacks with radioactive substance.
A ‘radioactive tsunami’ of Europe which would remove millions of people from the earth.
The largest religious Holocaust the world has seen. “

Source: Jürgen Todenhöfe, who, according Den Korte Avis, has been “voluntary prisoner “for ten days by Isis.
Apparently in order to disclose confidential, but probably carefully selected, “information”.

Although such a radioactive tsunami has been mentioned many times, it is not possible.

Long before this potential terrorist has collected just 1% of the required radioactive material, he will die a miserable, but not that glorious death from acute radiation sickness.

Thus, this aspiring terrorist be the first and probably the only victim.

Of course there are several reports that radioactive material has been stolen or “lost” and that it comes to eg 50 kg uranium.
Although uranium is not the best material for a dirty bomb, yes it sounds rather deterrent.
If there is to be made more than panic, then there will be need for much more than one ‘can just’ find in hospitals and the like.

Allow me to raise a number of questions, to which I unfortunately can not provide complete answers to – but better than most.

But first:
The many confusing units is a recurring challenge.
Milli Sievert is the unit for biological effects of ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
There has never been found injuries after brief irradiation less than 100 mSv
If the exposure is spread over a longer time, the damage will be noticeably reduced.
500 mSv will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness, but will not call for shorter lifespans.
500 mSv is 100 times the normally permitted.
3,500 mSv will cause half of the irradiated to die and that the survivors will have an average life span three years less than the general population.

Bq Becquerel is a radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit.
We all carry around with some 4,500 Bq from natural sources.

Unfortunately, there is no clear relationship between mSv and Bq

Alpha and beta radiation can cause severe burns – as in severe sunburn.
But otherwise, it will only be dangerous if the radioactive material is eaten or inhaled.
Neutron radiation causes severe radiation damage, but will be found only in connection with a nuclear bomb explosion.
A dirty bomb must thus be based on substances emitting gamma radiation.

How dangerous is ionizing (radioactive) radiation?

  • It is known that populations have lived for generations in areas with fairly high natural radioactivity.
    Far more than the “permissible”.
    However, without the injury has taken place.
    Most pronounced is the area around Ramsar in Pakistan.
    Over 200 mSv/year, mostly from radon.
  • According to The Guardian “Return Movers” (‘babushkas’) live in areas near Chernobyl designated as “Strictly Controlled”.
    Here, the contamination exceeds 555 kBq/m^2
    Number is not stated. But elsewhere is mentioned 270,000, who apparently include people who have moved to areas with only
    37 kBq/m^2

I reject numerous, obvious forgeries atrocity stories which probably comes from Greenpeace or stooges.

  • For political reasons there has been set unrealistically low values ​​for permissible radiation. Both at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
  • But now to the point.
    How much does it take to make a large area uninhabitable?

    And how many kg / ton material will be needed?
    Here I am answer guilty. But it will need much more than a terrorist
    ‘so just’ find in hospitals and the like.
    Of course, you need much more than 555 kBq/m^2
    Presumably tenfold.
    If you want to inflict damage before people will have time to flee – then there will be need for even much more.
    My guess is that it will be necessary to break through the
    two-meter-thick reactor containment and collect more than a ton radioactive fuel.

But now comes the real question:

How should this terrorists protect themselves from radiation while this radioactive material assembled and before it has been spread out?

  • Although you see pictures of “green activists”, wearing white suit with breathing apparatus, then these very large amounts of radioactive material has to be handled by remote control behind a wall of lead.
  • The white suit seen in many images is completely ineffective against radiation, but may give (false) credibility.
  • Do not forget that it is assumed that this radioactive material must be sufficient to kill “countless people” and that it will be necessary to have something that is far beyond a mere bagatelle.

Finally, we wonder:
How will this terrorist distribute this radioactive material so that it can get out and kills many, instead of being concentrated in a limited area?


A realistic “dirty bomb”, which to our knowledge has never been tried, is something quite different:
It is an ‘ordinary nuclear bomb’ that is surrounded by a second material,
eg cobalt.
It will be radioactive by absorbing some of the neutrons left over from the explosion of the atomic bomb.
But even this will not be enough to create a “Radioactive Tsunami”.

Now if this terrorist mysteriously manages to collect sufficiently high enriched uranium or plutonium of ‘weapons-grade’, it can be assembled and you will get a ‘criticality’ that will cause less harm than you would get by detonating a regular grenade.
In order to have a nuclear bomb to work, it will be necessary to have a very special igniter (Initiator) and a very complicated geometry.

  • At a later stage there were some “reasonable people” who found out that biological and chemical weapons are easier to produce and handle than radioactive materials.
  • Possibly the fright value of radioactivity is greater.

Now I think, we should leave all further talk of a dirty bomb to the professional horror prophets who ignores the realities, but uses the subject to spread fear, where everything that is dealing with radiation or nuclear distorted to be a high risk .

This of course does not mean that we should neglect the fight against the use of nuclear bombs.
More: See:
From Wikipedia: About nuclear safety and security.
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
And if you are not tired, too:
Radiation and Cancer.
Check the facts.

Greetings from Thorkil Søe

If you, my unknown reader, have relevant additions, modifications or factually reasoned objection, I ask you to write to me at


  • In an attempt to find a response it has been argued that just “the threat of radioactivity will cause panic and will thus be even more terrible than a dirty bomb”.
    In a way it is true. But here it is easy to point out the guilty.
  • But all this is nothing compared to the many thousands of children who have to go into adult life as a blind because – – – –
  • Or the millions of orphans who must live in an existence that is not worthy for humans because – – – –

Englisch Übersetzung

In gewisser Weise war es Deutschland, die erste ging, weil nach der Wiedervereinigung Kernenergie in Europa zu begrenzen begann.
Es ist schwer, etwas anderes als politische Motive zu finden.

Zunächst ist eine Zusammenfassung von Informationen aus Organisation REO, die plädieren für eine ausgewogene Beurteilung der Energie, insbesondere der Kernenergie.

  • Fünf Reaktoren in der ehemaligen DDR Deutschland wurden während der deutschen Wiedervereinigung geschlossen.
  • Vier Reaktoren in Bulgarien und Slowenien wurden als Bedingung für den Zugang zum EU geschlossen.
  • Drei Reaktoren in Deutschland wurden vor der Katastrophe in Fukushima geschlossen.
  • Acht weitere deutsche Reaktoren nach der Katastrophe von Fukushima waren geschlossen.
  • Ein kompletter Reaktor in Österreich und ein anderer in Deutschland wird nie zum Einsatz.

Zusätzlich geschlossen zwei Reaktoren in Barsebäck, auch wegen des politischen Drucks.
Mit keinem anderen Rechtfertigung als eine aufgeblähte, aber äußerst unfaire öffentliche Meinung in Dänemark.

So wurde für 15 GW Energie geschlossen, die leicht verfügbar heute sein könnte.

Um die Versorgung und das grüne Modell zu halten hat große Menge an Solarenergie und Windkraft ausgegeben.
Trotzdem war es notwendig, den Einsatz zu beginnen
12 MW neuer Kohlekraftwerke.

Eine Folge davon war:

Brunkul i TysklandVon vielen Seiten kritisiert der ehrgeizigen Pläne.
Vorläufige was Vorläufige was darauf hindeutet, all dies zu Deutschland nicht nur ihre Wirtschaft zu ruinieren, sondern zerstört auch das Klima zu speichern.

All dies kann in einem reichen Land natürlich tun.
In Deutschland fühlt sich offenbar wird die Welt untergehen, wenn es in einem Atomkraftwerk ein schwerer Unfall ist.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.pngTjernobyl dyreliv.pngAber dann (März 2016) beginnt der Spiegel zu erklären, wie all diese teuren Maßnahmen waren nicht erforderlich und so viel Angst vor der Kernenergie war stark übertrieben.

und Tiere sie verstehen nichts.
Mit dem folgenden von Der Spiegel (März 2013), gibt es keinen Anhaltspunkt dafür, dass die “Grünen” zu verstehen beginnen – langsam.

Selv dieser Konflikt berührt alle politiska Parteien, keiner ist mehr påvirket als die Grünen.
Seit der Gründung der Partei im Jahr 1980 verfocht har ein Atomausstieg und Kämpfte für saubere Energie.
Aber jetzt ist thatthis phaseout im Gange, sind die Grünen einen großen Teil von sina Traum zu verwirklichen – die utopische Idee einer Gesellschaft, die auf “gute” Leistung betrieben wird – wird sich in Luft verschwinden.
Grüne Energie, theyhave gefunden, kommt zu einem enormen Kosten.
Und die Umwelt også zahlen einen Preis, wenn die Dinge in Gang halten, wie sie havebeen.

In Deutschland haben Sie Das Bürokratie-Monster erreicht:
Von Der Spiegel Oktober 2013 zitiert:
“Vergessen wir nicht, dass die deutschen Bürokraten über 4.000 verschiedene Subventionskategorien für erneuerbare Energien entstanden sind und anscheinend an dem Prinzip festhalten, dass das, was besonders teuer ist, großzügig subventioniert werden muss.”

2016 August lesen wir, dass Deutschland die Subventionssystem ändern.
Es bedeutet, dass Sie das bestehende System verlassen wird basierend auf
Einspeisetarif zugunsten eines Systems nach Plänen auf Auktion Verträge zu liefern” erneuerbaren “Strom an den billigsten Anbieter.
Die verdorbene A-Kraft ist nicht als hartnäckig definiert.
Es ist nur billig und stabil.

und vieles mehr

Das Energy Collective gibt Januar 2017 ein sehr langer Versuch einer Bewertung.
Informationen und Ansprüche sind in alle Richtungen.

Aber die wirklich verheerende Regel ist, dass “Green Energy” Netzwerkpriorität hat.
Das bedeutet, dass “Die anderen” nur Backup sein sollten.
Obwohl es die Wirtschaft zerstört, wird davon ausgegangen, dass “das traditionelle” weiterhin vorhanden sein muss.
Dies ist “so nur” angegeben, um $ 24 Milliarden pro Jahr zu kosten.
Wenn die Informationen von Die kollektive Energie ist zuverlässig, es entspricht die Kosten für vier neue Reaktoren pro Jahr zu bauen.
Aber egal, was das Risiko einer Xenon-Vergiftung (Xe135) und eine Katastrophe von Tschernobyl, machen es unmöglich, die Kernenergie kann als back-up verwendet werden.

Agora Energiewende Bewertung 2014 bietet eine Fülle von Daten, die offenbar sorgfältig ist ausgewählt.
Aber egal was passiert, kann man sehen, dass die deutschen „traditionelle Kraftwerke“ geschickt worden sind bei den Netto-Ausgleich.

Der Spiegel, dass forkætres der grünen, bietet Informationen über Dunkelflaute, „dunkle Wind Arten“ bedeutet.
Das habe ich versucht, auf einer anderen Seite zu behandeln .

„Mehr Es folgt aus dem vorstehenden, dass Deutschland, die schwer zu grün, und kontaminationsfrei arbeitet –
Ja, sie kann das Hinterrad aus der „Atom-France“ nicht einmal sehen.

März 2017 die deutsche Energiewende wieder auf die The Energy Collective kommt.
Sie lesen, dass wir entweder wiederholen kann Deutschland die Fehler oder
von ihnen zu lernen.
Offenbar lernen die Bevölkerung nicht.

​​Auf einer anderen Seite, auch von die Energie gemeinschaftlich, sieht, dass in Deutschland Strom fast 10mal mehr verschmutzenden ist im Vergleich zu dem Französisch.
Man bekommt die Daten aus dem 2016.
Deutschland erzeugten 545 TWh und entladen im April 560 g CO2 pro kWh
Frankreich erzeugt 530 TWh und entladen im April 58 g CO2 pro kWh

Und dann.
Obwohl ich gesagt habe es viele Male:
Der Spiegel schreibt, dass die gefürchtete Radioaktivität nicht so gefährlich sein kann, wie wir dachten.


Sehr selten gibt es Informationen über die Kosten von Energiewende zur Verfügung.
Von Das Energy Collective Collective , wie folgt:

Redispatch (Umverteilung)

In Perioden gibt es nicht genügend Kapazität, die Energie zu übertragen.
Dies bedeutet, dass die billigste Energie nicht verkauft werden kann und das “Netz” bedeutet teurer werden.
Zum Beispiel, wenn es in Norddeutschland viel Wind und ein großes Bedürfnis in Süddeutschland gibt.

År – – Antal dage Energimængde Omkostninger
2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Hier sind die folgenden:
2013 – – 555 GWh
2014 – – 4.722 GWh

Die folgende Abbildung gibt einen Überblick über die Kosten (Mio € / Jahr).
Deutsch omkostninger.png


Bis 2015 stiegen die Gesamtausgaben auf 715 Mio. €

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
As the title of this page is on nuclear power, I will start by asking:
—–Is nuclear power worth the risk?
Instantly, I will turn the question to:
—–Is refusal of nuclear power worth the risk?

To put the issue into perspective, I feel it is necessary to start with some examples to show how we react to the concept of risk.

A random bullet

Theoretically it is possible to be hit by a stray bullet from a gang conflict or a terrorist’s desire for death and destruction.
Nevertheless, we regard it as foolish of caution if you use a bulletproof vest before going to the mailbox with a letter.
But you take on the seat belt. Not only because the police require it.

What is security?
How is security perceived ?

Already here I come to ask questions, to which I cannot give an answer.
However, I emphasize that the desire for 100% security is an illusion.

The Illogical Human

I’ll start by showing an example of how we are not able to assess the concept of security – logically.

Vacation in Yugoslavia
In the good old days many German tourists had a good holiday in what was a very peaceful Yugoslavia.
Of course there were those, who home in a coffin.
———- You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark!
The following year the tourist flow halved.
Of course, the situation soon returned to normal.

Falsified “Information”

For reasons best understood by others, there is almost no end to the erroneous “information” that is flowing out of the media.
Most from the so-called green organizations.

On another page, I have shown how Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth.

Denmark’s Radio
On this page I have shown how Denmark’s Radio presented clearly falcified “information” in connection with the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Despite calls it was not possible to persuade the Danish Radio to retract.

The Ocean at Fukushima
Near the end of this page you can follow the outrageous claims made by unnamed sources.

The actual topic:

(Redundant) safety of nuclear

After these initial assessments, I come to what perhaps is the point.

The Dilemma of Western Nuclear

Of course, you wonder when you look at the following:

– Cheapest nuclear power from ‘old systems’ (Sweden) 26 €/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): 27 €/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
A little more and some references. See

The highly publicized reactor EPR

Core Catcher
One of the expensive safety systems in the disastrously expensive reactor EPR is a so-called Core Catcher.

Although the cooling-system, quite naturally, is with a lot of extra security. The design goes one step further and says:

If there is an error on all four independent cooling-systems, there shall be something ‘capturing’ the molten core, which in the nuclear jargon is called the corium.
Only this core catcher together with additional reinforcement of the reactor containment makes EPR 15% more expensive than other reactors.

EPR Core Catcher
This core catcher would have had no meaning and would not have remedied any harm in connection with the more than 15,000 reactor-years, there has been nuclear power in the West.
The four independent systems for cooling, in four different buildings, is in itself a costly (excessive?) security, resulting in increased cost of this design.

If available data are to be believed. Then the return period for a core meltdown in this reactor will be two million years.
Considering that the core-meltdown at Three Mile Island did not result in injuries – Yes, then it feels to be reasonably when reactors from Russia, China and Korea are without this and other (unnecessary?) details.

Fit for the market?
On the net site Energy Post you can find a thorough assessment of the nagging problem:
Is the EPR nuclear reactor fit for the current market?
The following is what I consider the main points.

  • Before the disaster at Fukushima UAE selected a well known and tested design (Generation II +) from Korea instead of the advanced, unproven and expensive EPR
    It is suggested that the choice might have been different if the bidding round had been post-Fukushima.
    ——– “One kan say that EPR’s design was “over-delivering” in ——– terms of safety for 2009 Abu Dhabi (UAE)
    ——– But is seriously well-suited in a post-Fukushima world.”
    I add and modify to write: “In a post-Fukushima hysteria.”
  • In the UK, they are apparently afraid of a very powerful solar storm, can destroy the computer systems.
    (Catastrophic solar storms are extremely rare and will be announced in due time so that you can take necessary precautions.)
    ——- “In addition, new demands from the UK regulator – Such – ——- as the existence of a non-computerized safety system imply ——– that additional costs must be undertaken”.
  • Other countries have other, costly and seemingly unreasonable, demands.
    Also these requirements are in effect a needless and costly desire for more security.
  • It is tempting to blame the national security units to lay down special rules in order to show:
    “See how careful we are. Our work shows that we are not superfluous”.
  • Here it can even be said that the EU lacks harmonized provisions for many details. Various demands for safety thus complicates planning and approval.

Filter at Barsebäck

In connection with the reactors at Barsebäck in Sweden, there was a filter with 17,000 tons of granite chippings.
Such a filter was recommended and would have been useful at a place like Fukushima where there was a known danger of earthquakes and tsunami.
But it will hardly be relevant (be superfluous) at the reactors that have been, and will be build in Europe.


Swedish wasteAgain and again we hear that the waste problem is not solved.

Instead of taking this – obvious fake – claim up to objective discussion:
In my opinion we have jumped on the usual limed twig and ‘just’ increased safety.
Far beyond what is necessary.

Although the costs are small, it is almost ridiculous to see how it goes zik zak deep into the mountain.

In comparison with the value of the energy produced it is pennies.
Still this is absurd added security.
The trend is clear.

How much should be deposited?

If information from World Nuclear stands to ge believed, we find discriminatory and obsolete safety requrements as soon as the case relates to nuclear power:

For example, scrap steel from gas plants can be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg radioactivity (The exceptional level).
This level is a thousand times higher than the permissible levels of material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry.
Here everything above 500 Bq/kg, cannot be released from regulatory control for recycling.

Although the text is a bit vague, it is hardly debatable that this factor of 1000 related to what is being defined as hazardous testifies obsolete or deliberately costly safety requirements for nuclear power.


Almost in an aside Wikipedia writes that one ton of (high ?) radioactive waste is equivalent to a reduction of CO2 emissions of 25 million tons.
Moreover, you will find much other pollution: For example, mercury, arsenic and radioactive isotopes.
This massive pollution is ‘just’ discharged in the environment, while the radioactive waste from nuclear treated carefully.
The proper treatment of this waste is hardly superfluous.
But sometimes you feel a lack of proportion.

A logical assessment

I will conclude my incoherent assessment of the following:

Combat Cholera
A student in Tanzania should present a thesis.
She had planned a road to bypass a town where the through traffic was a big challenge.
Eventually, she was asked whether she would recommend that this project should be realized.
To everyone’s surprise, she replied:
“If the purpose is to save lives. The money should be used to fight the cholera!”


When is something superfluous?
Actually I should stop here and ask you, my unknown reader, to consider the situation and draw your own conclusion.

Nevertheless, I cannot resist referring to other – more or less relevant details – I, over the years, have accumulated:

Related to this entry:
Why is nuclear power so expensive?
Assessment of risk
Naturally also:
Greenpeace’s credability is a myth
If you are not tired, also:
Injuries from radiation
Deaths at Chernobyl
Radiation and cancer
Damage caused by noise from wind turbines.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe